Houston judge accused of racist remarks

Updated 8:25 am, Wednesday, February 6, 2013

District Judge Lynn Hughes was appointed to the bench in 1985 by Ronald Reagan.

District Judge Lynn Hughes was appointed to the bench in 1985 by Ronald Reagan.

Houston judge accused of racist remarks

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

Widely known in the local federal courthouse for his tendency to say what he thinks about some of the cases brought before him, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes has found himself under fire again for remarks that a Texas civil rights group claims are racist.

The Texas Civil Rights Project has gone so far to ask for Hughes' resignation over comments he made during a hearing last November in a lawsuit brought by a state employee who claimed he was discriminated against when he was laid off. The comments came to light when the plaintiff, J.T. Shah, filed a recusal motion against Hughes, asking that the case be reassigned to another judge.

"His personal beliefs, which he has made clear on a number of occasions, are incompatible with his duties and responsibilities, at least in this type of discrimination case," Amin Alehashem, who heads the organization's Houston office, said of Hughes. "And it makes one wonder how such beliefs could bleed into other types of cases as well."

Alehashem said his group, which does pro bono legal work for low-income Texans who believe they have been victimized by illegal discrimination, became aware of Hughes' comments when they recently were cited in a post on a popular legal blog, Above the Law. The group filed a formal complaint against Hughes on Tuesday in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, complaining of his comments in three cases that amounted to "a demonstrated pattern and practice of bias and prejudice against alleged victims of discrimination."

"Regardless of what happens with our complaint, if the only thing that comes from this is some publicity, that will be a good start toward eradicating such remarks in the future from judges, who have such incredible power to affect so many people's lives," Alehashem said. "Judges have such incredible discretion from the bench. It is troubling to see him almost advocating the defense's side and discrediting any sort of counter argument from the other side that is based on national origin and religion and those sorts of things."

Hughes could not be reached for comment. It is a policy of all federal judges not to comment on cases currently pending in their courts.

Joking about diversity

During the November hearing, Hughes at one point veered off on a tangent about diversity, making fun of educational institutions that have hired personnel to broaden the racial diversity of employees.

"And what does a diversity director do," Hughes said, "go around and (paint) students different colors so they think they were mixed?"

Later, Hughes appeared to discount the possibility that the plaintiff in the case could have been discriminated against because of his South Asian ethnic background. Shah's Indian origin did not impress Hughes as special.

"All right," Hughes said. "So he's Caucasian."

"No, he's Indian," replied the attorney for the state.

"They're Caucasian," Hughes said. "That's where we came from. That's why Adolph Hitler used the swastika."

Hughes appeared to confuse Caucasian - a racial classification that was popularized in the 19th century and which used certain Eastern European characteristics as representative of a larger group - with Aryan, which refers to the original speakers of early Indo-European languages and which later was hijacked by 19th-century racial theorists to describe a purportedly "master" root race that represented the human ideal.

Not first criticism

Hughes has been chided in the past for racial comments made from the bench. In another discrimination case brought by an African-American school employee against the Fort Bend Independent School district, Hughes dismissed alleged comments made by the plaintiff's supervisor that if Barack Obama were elected president, the Statue of Liberty would have its torch replaced by a piece of fried chicken. Hughes said that was insignificant political speech.

A 5th Circuit panel of judges disagreed, pointing out that Hughes seemed to fail to grasp the implicit racial slur.

"While FBISD challenged the statement as rank hearsay, the district judge rejected it as political, observing that 'no black individually and no blacks collectively owns [sic] the sensitivity rights to fried chicken or anything else,' " the judges ruled in an opinion that nevertheless upheld Hughes' decision in the case. "The district judge's comment misses the mark, as it overlooks the racial component."

In a footnote, the judges elaborated on Hughes' apparent failure to appreciate the alleged implications, even if they did not find enough merit in the lawsuit to overturn Hughes' decision: "When (Albert) Autry's lawyer tentatively suggested that Johnson's alleged reference to fried chicken was 'a long-standing racial slur,' the district judge rejoined that 'That's really surprising to Colonel Sanders.' "

Upset women's groups

Hughes, 71, was appointed to the bench in 1985 by Ronald Reagan. A native Houstonian, he was a civil attorney before becoming a state district judge in 1979.

Plaintiffs bringing discrimination suits often find tough sledding in Hughes' court. Last year, he ruled against a woman who claimed she was fired from her job with a debt collection company because she asked for time and a private room to pump breast milk for her infant. He said that breast-feeding and related activity is not " … pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition," a decision that infuriated a number of women's groups.

"Even if Venters's claims are true," Hughes wrote in his opinion, "the law does not punish lactation discrimination."